Would Noah's Ark, as described in the Book of Genesis, be seaworthy? You may treat "gopher wood" as any type of wood available today or known to have existed, and may add construction details not mentioned as long as you don't otherwise contradict the account. For example, you can select what type of pitch or nails you use as long as you use materials that would have been plausible for ancient humanity.

For example, could a multimillionaire use the book of Genesis as a guide and create their own Noah's Ark and expect it to be seaworthy?

I am not asking whether or not the book of Genesis records true history, only whether or not the boat described therein is plausible.

There are really only two questions, here. First, would it float, and second, would it be stable. On the first, pretty much any sealed hollow wooden structure will float. And on the second, to get a full answer, we'd need to know how the weight inside is distributed, but in general, making a vessel larger makes it easier to make it stable.

The bigger problem is just what we're considering the Ark's specifications to be. Are we considering it to have the measurements in cubits it's claimed to have, or are we considering it to be big enough to contain two or more of every kind of animal, and support them for months?

It's not really the size that would make it more sea worthy than it is the ratio of it's dimensions. You don't need to know how long a cubit is to know that the ark was six times longer than its beam. That's ridiculously unseaworthy for an unpowered vessel. If your not planning to drive it anywhere you're better off in a giant basket than you are in something shaped like a modern container ship.

That said, who's to say the Flood created sea like conditions. If it was just water falling out if the sky and not a storm with wind anything that floats would do.

__________________
Elmer J. Fudd,
Millionaire.
I own a mansion and a yacht.

I recall watching a TV show several years ago where they made a scale version of the ark using the dimensions and other information from the Bible. It's not like there are detailed plans about the construction of the ark in there, so they did have to do a lot of guesswork. They did at least base the construction of the ship on common shipbuilding techniques of the time. They tested their model in a wave tank and found that not only did it float, but it was also quite seaworthy and had a natural tendency to turn itself into the waves.

What this has to do with the actual ark (if it even existed) is all guesswork, but it does at least answer the OP. It is quite possible to build a ship based on the description of it in the Bible and have it be seaworthy. The dimensions and the description given are plausible, even assuming ancient construction methods.

There are really only two questions, here. First, would it float, and second, would it be stable.

Is there not a third question: would it be strong enough not to fall apart when waves put stresses on the structure? Lift the stern and bow with a wave, middle unsupported in a trough, and she snaps in two?

It's not really the size that would make it more sea worthy than it is the ratio of it's dimensions. You don't need to know how long a cubit is to know that the ark was six times longer than its beam. That's ridiculously unseaworthy for an unpowered vessel.

A cubit is just the length from a man's elbow to his fingertips. It's not an exact measurement, but it does give you a pretty close ballpark figure. The ark as described is maybe somewhere around 450 feet long or somewhere thereabouts, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall, but given the lack of a standard cubit, it could be anywhere from say 440 feet to 460 feet in length and still match the description. So yeah it's hard to say exactly what a cubit is, but we know the ark as described wasn't 200 feet long, nor was it 600 feet long. It was somewhere reasonably close to 450 feet long, which is pretty big.

This is a study of the ark's theoretical "safety". It isn't related to the TV show that I saw many years ago, but their description of the ship is very similar. They conclude that the ship was not "ridiculously unseaworthy" as you claim, but in fact was reasonably well constructed and could tolerate high winds and waves greater than 30m in height.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/noah

ETA: That link also discusses the structural integrity issue based on their assumptions of how the ship would have been constructed.

Physical size is not the only determinant, though of course size compared to the materials may be very important.

Do the techniques of the day allow for the type of rib structures that would be needed, and out of interest, is there likely to be enough wood of the right type available?

How long was it supposed to have taken to construct?

If we were looking at this as a project that we would have to consider how much material of the right quality, the labour required and the timescale.

All our received ideas of what an ark might have looked like are probably very unrealistic, I would not be surprised that an simple floating pontoon would have been the best, easiest and cheapest option, had there ever been such a thing as an ark.

I'm not an engineer so I can't comment on the conclusions of that linked study. I do know that stability increases as the ratio between length and beam decreases. That is why modern life rafts are round. The reason ships are longer than they are wide is so they can travel through the water better. The Ark only had to float. Making it look like a boat only makes it less seaworthy.

Aren't arguments for the ark's seaworthiness/ floatability sort of Biblical fanwanking? If you believe in the god of the OT, nothing really needs to be explained- God kept the animals in food, calmed the waters, stopped the boat from leaking, etc.

The Wyoming was 450 feet long overall, with a beam of 50 feet. However, the waterline length was only 330 feet, giving a length-to-beam ratio of 6.6. The ship was in service for 15 years, but tended to ship water in heavy seas, and eventually sank in a storm.

Quote:

Because of her extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep her hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, she foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.

So, if the Ark had a big figurehead it would definitely be possible. Of course, if 200 cubits is not a waterline length, the sauropods have that much less room in which to frolic.

That aside, a 450 foot long Ark seems woefully undersized to hold at least two of every known species, over a million animals alone, even if you excluded fish and whales (and what about plants; some might be able to survive submerged but many would rot in the time given, never mind that it would be salt water).

This is a study of the ark's theoretical "safety". It isn't related to the TV show that I saw many years ago, but their description of the ship is very similar. They conclude that the ship was not "ridiculously unseaworthy" as you claim, but in fact was reasonably well constructed and could tolerate high winds and waves greater than 30m in height.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v8/n1/noah

ETA: That link also discusses the structural integrity issue based on their assumptions of how the ship would have been constructed.

Is this the first non-ironic use of an answers in genesis link in GQ, or am I being whooshed?

Quote:

Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull. However, several explorers have each claimed that they have discovered the remains of the Ark at some sites on Mt. Ararat. Based on their arguments and references,9 we estimated the form of the Ark’s hull as that of a barge-type ship.

Translation - we made something up.

Quote:

Assuming the specific gravity of the wood was 0.6 (tonnes per cubic metre) gave a lightweight (bare hull weight) estimate of about 4,000 tonnes, and the cargo weight then became 17,016 tonnes.

Bolding mine. This is very dubious. The also Wyoming had a similar empty weight, but a cargo capacity of only about 5,500 tonnes. That's a huge discrepancy between the one of the largest wooden ships ever built, and the claimed performance of the Ark. Without a credible displacement figure, those fancy stability calculations are so much bilge-water I'm afraid.

The maximum possible weight for an ark-sized boat, assuming 18 inch cubits and fresh water, is about 43,000 tons. Even allowing for empty weight and wanting to float a bit higher than right at water level, 17,000 tons doesn't sound absurd.

Aren't arguments for the ark's seaworthiness/ floatability sort of Biblical fanwanking? If you believe in the god of the OT, nothing really needs to be explained- God kept the animals in food, calmed the waters, stopped the boat from leaking, etc.

Of course it's like fanwanking. Not unlike deliberating if the Millennium Falcon (of which we have more stringent design plant on compared to Noah's ark), could really make the Kessel run in under 9 parsecs, despite the fact a parsec is a measure of distance.

Example fanwank: Well, perhaps the Kessel Run is an infamous smuggling run, from point A to Point B. That course is determined by your strategy of which routes, the inherent dangers of choosing which route(s) as the shortcuts found are usually the most heavily guarded, too remote if something goes wrong, or impassable by circumstance, like a nebula or something.

Then again, they asked him if the ship was fast, not if he was cunning. But he was both and the Empire was defeated.

...And then God invented the rainbow, and Lucas didn't know what the fuck a parsec was.

Aren't arguments for the ark's seaworthiness/ floatability sort of Biblical fanwanking? If you believe in the god of the OT, nothing really needs to be explained- God kept the animals in food, calmed the waters, stopped the boat from leaking, etc.

Yeah, and if God is all-powerful, what does he need a wooden boat for? Why can't he just snap his fingers and make it all happen instantly? What's with this 40 days & 40 nights shit? What does he need Noah for? If he created the world once, what's so dammed difficult about a little redecorating?

2) An elderly gentleman does not have the capability of taming two of every creature on earth and leading them thousands of miles toward the ark. Especially given there were continents across oceans that were inaccessible to him.

3) Two of every creature doesn't provide a stable enough gene pool for those species to continue to exist. Hint: even if they were all potent and fertile, their offspring would all be inbred and the problem would only get worse.

4) Two of every creature haven't even been discovered by MODERN biologists. New and previously undiscovered species exist everywhere. How many varieties of toad on how many continents would he have had to collect?

5) After the flood, since all the animals not on the Ark were wiped out, how did the Americas become populated with animals again? There was no land bridge between Asia and America at that time.

6) The distribution of species on earth, isolated from one another by oceans, could not have ended up distributed the way they did if all species except the ones on a boat that ended up in the middle east died. There's a reason Darwin's voyage was so interesting, because certain islands had clearly isolated populations of flora and fauna, which would not have developed such distinct differences from mainland creatures in just a few thousand years.

7) Opponents of evolution are often believers in this Noah's Ark nonsense. Well to give them a big hint: Evolution would have had to occur at a rate a hundred thousand times faster than it actually does in the real world for the Noah's Ark story to be even remotely plausible. Otherwise you wouldn't have so many different types of beetles, okay?

8) Explain why the plants and animals of all the distinct continents look like they've been evolving in isolation for millions of years, not having a common mediterranean source of approximately 4000-5000 years ago

9) Without evolution, the amount of species on the ark, in terms of sheer mass alone, would sink the ship and overflow out of it.

10) Food. Shit. Piss. Animals eating each other. Disease. Natural death. Accidental death. A handful of people trying to keep elephants, tigers, lions, polar bears, penguins (that must have taken a while) alive, not diseased, and uninjured. There's no way you fit the sheer mass of organisms inside a boat of that size. The humans on board will spend 24 hours a day hauling tons and tons of feces and piss up to the top deck to pour it overboard. Good luck going inside the Lion's cage to collect his shit chunks. Where do you store the food? How do you feed a hundred thousand pairs of animals? Do you keep them in separate cages? A cage for each of the different varieties of toad? Flightless birds? Wild cats? Wild dogs? Freshwater FISH?

It's all lies, utterly ridiculous and indefensible lies!

And if there WAS A GOD, who is OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT, he wouldn't need to perform this ridiculous exercise, he could snap his fingers like Q and make it happen sans flood, and sans ark.

That the most brilliant of all beings ever conceived by man would have the imagination of a bronze age idiot, proves that this crap was written by a bronze age idiot.

It's right up there with slavery being okay, women being property to be traded by their fathers, and making bets with Satan that people will still worship God even if he's a total dick.

The writing in that book is so sloppy, the only explanation for the fact that anyone believes it is literally true is that they have no scientific curiosity, no ability to think critically, and no desire to question something they've been instructed not to question, just take it on faith. It's as ridiculous as Scientology, and when I see Christians making fun of Mormons for their wacky beliefs, I am stunned by the lack of self-awareness.

The Noah Story has a lot more holes in it than the wooden boat. It was sunk long before it ever became seaworthy.

How many flights of stairs would Noah have to climb, every single day, just to haul buckets of animal piss off the ark? How many tonnes of shit would he have to personally move, every day? Or do we just let the air become unbreathable with fumes, toxic gas, and the rancid stench?

Pack 100 chickens in a suitcase for 2 months and see how many of them survive without human intervention.

Now imagine the suitcase doesn't contain 100 chickens, but 2 of every chicken-sized animal on earth. Many of which eat one another.

Now keep every couple alive and well, and make sure they can breed and cover the earth when they're done, even though the genetics suggest you'll have nothing but retard babies who are riddled with genetic defects and are sterile.

Couple that with the grand question: If Eve has nothing but sons, who do they fuck? Cain wanders off and marries a baboon? What? Ask your priest.

The New Yorker had an article just a couple of weeks ago on a replica ark that was built in New York for making a film about Noah.

The set designer made the point that was made in this thread - an ark that doesn't need to go anywhere doesn't need a keel, and doesn't really need to look like a boat at all - it can just look like a big shack.

The maximum possible weight for an ark-sized boat, assuming 18 inch cubits and fresh water, is about 43,000 tons. Even allowing for empty weight and wanting to float a bit higher than right at water level, 17,000 tons doesn't sound absurd.

Seriously? We're taking about a wooden ship with a deadweight tonnage (cargo capacity) almost three and a half times outside known experience, and you don't see a problem? There are fields where order of magnitude estimates are useful, but shipbuilding is not one of them.

Yes, you could probably build a wooden structure of those dimensions, load it that heavily, and expect it to float - on a flat sea. The issue is whether it could survive the stresses of any significant wave action. The answer to that is, very probably not.

Very large wooden ships, such as the Wyoming, suffered badly from hogging and sagging. In the case of the Wyoming, water would leak through the hull as the planks twisted, which had to be pumped out. And this is a ship reinforced with iron struts every 3 feet or so. Bear in mind, any flooding compounds the problem, as the stresses increase.

The study I debunked ignores these problems. The stability analysis itself may be perfectly sound, but is useless if the basic figures are not realistic.

To cover all the land with water, the rate of rainfall must have been tremendous. way heavier rainfall than any wooden boat structure could endure. Heck, i doubt that a modern aircraft carrier could withstand that rate of rainfall.

To cover all the land with water, the rate of rainfall must have been tremendous. way heavier rainfall than any wooden boat structure could endure. Heck, i doubt that a modern aircraft carrier could withstand that rate of rainfall.

To cover all the land with water, the rate of rainfall must have been tremendous. way heavier rainfall than any wooden boat structure could endure. Heck, i doubt that a modern aircraft carrier could withstand that rate of rainfall.

The problems with a literal interpretation of the story are actually much greater than that. If the waters camein the form of rain, the seas would boil, due to gravitational potential energy being converted to heat. Noah and company would be broiled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

I thought the water came from under the earth as well.

And if the water came from under the ground, you'd have the same problem. It's hot down there. Hence the utility of geothermal power.

Duplicating Noah’s ark by building it to some scale model won’t do, because it’s the size that will do it in and cause it to leak like a sieve! Noah and company could not have bailed the massive amounts of water that would have been taken in.

It would have needed iron straps or some other metal to hold it all together. Noah’s ark was well before the Iron age, and there is also no mention of anything other than gopher wood. Look at any large wooden ship, and you’ll see how important iron or other metals come into play into holding it all together.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now